Yahoo Forum Archive

Feeling much better, even though that fatmouse site came up blank (must be
the firewall or something). But have been eating cheese. Good protein.

I agree, having the order change every time you load a page would be
insane... um... when I was methodically going through a certain category, the only way
I could keep track of where I stopped was that the page was nicely sorted and
I could just read down the right hand side to where it said "edit review" or
something like that.

I don't know if that's what you meant or not.

You've done an awesome job, Anthony. My hat's off to you.

Lin

In a message dated 11/6/2005 8:40:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com writes:

I could also randomize the order in each category, but I figure that
having the order change every time you load a page would be insane,
unless I could figure out a way of storing a different sort order for
each user. I need to look into how to use cookies. Unfortunately, not
the peanut-butter pecan variety. <g>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, BLJean@a... wrote:

>
> Feeling much better, even though that fatmouse site came up blank

(must be

> the firewall or something).

I think it means fatmouse sat on the server...

Dwim

Well, if the reader could control the sort order and the default was
"random", then the first browse stories page would come up with different
stories on top as people signed in, but for someone who wanted to go through
a category systematically they could choose another sort order along with
the filters, by author, or title, etc. and keep track of where they'd been
last that way. Or the default order could be by number of reviews, with the
zeros floating to the top. That would also give an advantage but it would be
a temporary advantage as stories garnered reviews.

On 11/6/05, BLJean@aol.com <BLJean@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Feeling much better, even though that fatmouse site came up blank (must be
>
> the firewall or something). But have been eating cheese. Good protein.
>
> I agree, having the order change every time you load a page would be
> insane... um... when I was methodically going through a certain category,
> the only way
> I could keep track of where I stopped was that the page was nicely sorted
> and
> I could just read down the right hand side to where it said "edit review"
> or
> something like that.
>
> I don't know if that's what you meant or not.
>
> You've done an awesome job, Anthony. My hat's off to you.
>
> Lin
>
> In a message dated 11/6/2005 8:40:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> I could also randomize the order in each category, but I figure that
> having the order change every time you load a page would be insane,
> unless I could figure out a way of storing a different sort order for
> each user. I need to look into how to use cookies. Unfortunately, not
> the peanut-butter pecan variety. <g>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Business writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+writing+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=S1VR1VlMwudCExyBuuM8KQ> Writing
> book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=ZNzhL5tkYTnFn6e6dZzsVg> Creative
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Creative+writing+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=B6TA4cKmbN8ELbehU4Ha9Q> Writing
> child book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=CFK62BYognVZ8so-O02uUg>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> on the web.
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:

>
> Well, if the reader could control the sort order and the default was
> "random", then the first browse stories page would come up with

different> stories on top as people signed in, but for someone who
wanted to go through> a category systematically they could choose
another sort order along with> the filters, by author, or title, etc.
and keep track of where they'd been > last that way. Or the default
order could be by number of reviews, with the > zeros floating to the
top. That would also give an advantage but it would be> a temporary
advantage as stories garnered reviews.>

trying to think this through.

if the random sort is a database/cookie issue ...

I have a couple of thoughts.

* sort by reverse order of nomination. => it seems logical that
popular/well-read/well-known stories would (for the most part) be
nominated earlier in the process, so it might semi-balance
that 'already-known' advantage by bumping them down the list as new
nominations came in. This would automatically change the top listing
throughout nomination season, but not after. It seems reasonable to
think that the 'hidden gems' would be nominated later in the process
and therefore be easier to find since they'd be closer to the top of
the list, and the earlier nominations might be stories/authors that
are well-known enough that readers would actively seek them out so
there wouldn't be a disadvantage to being at the bottom of the list.

* instead of a random sort, could the database be set to periodic
change. like for example: every third day, start with the
next '10'. so the first monday, story number one would be at the top,
on wednesday it would start with story 11, and so on. - Would that be
managable technologically and would it sufficiently ramdomize the list?

* I would also support sorting by number of reviews, least first

On 6 Nov 2005, at 19:41, sulriel wrote:

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, if the reader could control the sort order and the default was
> > "random", then the first browse stories page would come up with
> different> stories on top as people signed in, but for someone who
> wanted to go through> a category systematically they could choose
> another sort order along with> the filters, by author, or title, etc.
> and keep track of where they'd been > last that way. Or the default
> order could be by number of reviews, with the > zeros floating to the
> top. That would also give an advantage but it would be> a temporary
> advantage as stories garnered reviews.>
>
> trying to think this through. 
>
> if the random sort is a database/cookie issue ... 
>
> I have a couple of thoughts.
>
> * sort by reverse order of nomination.  => it seems logical that
> popular/well-read/well-known stories would (for the most part) be
> nominated earlier in the process, so it might semi-balance
> that 'already-known' advantage by bumping them down the list as new
> nominations came in.  This would automatically change the top listing
> throughout nomination season, but not after.  It seems reasonable to
> think that the 'hidden gems' would be nominated later in the process
> and therefore be easier to find since they'd be closer to the top of
> the list, and the earlier nominations might be stories/authors that
> are well-known enough that readers would actively seek them out so
> there wouldn't be a disadvantage to being at the bottom of the list.
>
> * instead of a random sort, could the database be set to periodic
> change.   like for example:  every third day, start with the
> next '10'.  so the first monday, story number one would be at the top,
> on wednesday it would start with story 11, and so on. - Would that be
> managable technologically and would it sufficiently ramdomize the
> list?
>
> * I would also support sorting by number of reviews, least first
>
>

I like most of what Sulriel suggests, though I'm not that comfortable
with sorting by least number of reviews. It gives an advantage based on
the absence of reviews, and I'd rather go with a completely random
system. Such as the one I'm about to propose.

Now, keep in mind that I'm a recent college graduate with a BS in math.
So the math behind this seems like second nature to me; I've actually
tutored in it. I've tried to keep this light on theory, heavy on
application for the MEFAs, but I may have given my inner-geek just a
little too much freedom. But I'm trying to think back to cyclic groups
in number theory. Maybe we could use the principle behind these things
to sift nominations a better so that the first nominated stories don't
necessarily end up at the beginning of the list.

Notice that the number 7 doesn't have any common factors with 250. This
means (in uber-technical math terms - bear with me here) that the
number 7 generates the set of integers between 0 and any number of the
form "249". I'm talking about groups like {0, 1, 2, ... 244}; {0, 1,
2... 499}; {0, 1, 2... 749}; and so on. In what I hope are sufficiently
basic terms for the non-math inclined, the powers of 7 up to 7^249 (or
their remainder when divided by 250) will each be equal will each be
equal to a different between 0 and 249.

Now what does all of this have to do with the MEFAs? Let's say that we
assigned the first nomination an ID # of "7", the second an ID # of
"14", the third an id # of "21", etc. The
thirty-fifth entry would get an entry # of 245 (7*35=245), and the
thirty-sixth entry would wrap around to 2. (7*36=252-250=2). Then entry
#37 = "9", and the cycle starts all over again. When we reach 250
nominations we would just start over with 251-500 being the 250 ID #s
we're sifting through.

The upshot is that the first seven nominations will include nominations
from across the gamut of the first 250 stories nominated.

(I picked 7 because it is prime so it doesn't have any factors with any
numbers except multiples of 7. A similar sifting system could be set up
with other numbers. Provided the number we're increasing the story ID
by (in this example, 7) and the number of numbers we're sifting through
(in this example, 250), the sytstem will still work.)

Problem #1: This only gives each of the first 250 nominations a chance
to be displayed at the front of the list. We can extend this set-up to
any multiple of 250, for example 500 or 750. This would give all
nominations an equal chance of being displayed in the top 7 spots. For
example, with 750 story ID #s to fill, every 107th or 108th nomination
would be listed in the top seven nominations.

Problem #2: This wouldn't necessarily result in consecutive story ID
#s. If we do this trying to filter through 750 ID #s and it turns out
we only have 700 nominations, then there will be 50 ID #s that just
aren't used. But we have this way when stories are withdrawn.

Problem #3: The pages of the nomination menu wouldn't be set during
nomination season. As new stories are nominated they might push stories
stories that were on the first page of nominations onto the second.
There's no way to avoid this that I can see, but it seems like less of
a problem to me than having the first nominations at the beginning of
the list.

(Anthony, give me a reality check if this won't work with the website.)

If you've reached this point and what I've said still makes sense,
congratulations. You may have a future in the completely unmarketable
field of advanced mathematics. If what I said made no sense, let me
know and I'll try to explain it again.

And I'm almost squeeing because I've finally found an application of
this stuff for non-math geeks... *g*

Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

--- Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip long mathematical discussion>

Marta,

What you describe would take some work, because the
IDs are created by the database automatically.

But...

I might be able to figure out something. It could be
as simple as assigning IDs as random numbers between 1
and 100,000 (while checking to be sure there's no
duplication).

What I was thinking about, though, with the cookies,
would be something like this (assuming I can do
cookies, which I think I can do, or store sort orders
in a database):

ID numbers are still inserted normally.

Before nominating season is over, there is no sorting.
It's all random sorted, with a new sort each login
session, but you can still filter by author, suggested
category, and search.

Once nominating season is over, then I set a unique
sort order for each user (either with database, or
with cookies).

This sort order is used for all initial sorting for
that user. They can choose to sort by author or title,
but the 'ID' sort which would be default, would be
using this sort order.

This way, each user has their own sort order, and for
that user, those at the top of the list might get an
unfair advantage, but since all other users would have
different sorting, there's no system-wide bias.

I don't even know if this is possible. It might take
too much server CPU to do, or cookies might take too
long to load (since there might need to be one per
story, and that would be heinous) or something else
might make it unreasonable.

Anthony

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:

> <snip>
> If you've reached this point and what I've said still makes sense,
> congratulations. You may have a future in the completely
> unmarketable field of advanced mathematics. If what I said made no
> sense, let me know and I'll try to explain it again.

I think I'm just gonna take your word here, Marta!

> And I'm almost squeeing because I've finally found an application of
> this stuff for non-math geeks... *g*

*tries to contemplate squeeing over math but brain overloads* ;)

Kathy/Inkling (who is barely managing to help her kids with their 5th-
grade math, especially the problems that start out, "Let's talk about
math!")

> I like most of what Sulriel suggests, though I'm not that comfortable
> with sorting by least number of reviews. It gives an advantage based on
> the absence of reviews, and I'd rather go with a completely random
> system. Such as the one I'm about to propose.
>
> Now, keep in mind that I'm a recent college graduate with a BS in math.

<snip>

> Notice that the number 7 doesn't have any common factors with 250. This
> means (in uber-technical math terms - bear with me here) that the
> number 7 generates the set of integers between 0 and any number of the
> form "249". I'm talking about groups like {0, 1, 2, ... 244}; {0, 1,
> 2... 499}; {0, 1, 2... 749}; and so on. In what I hope are sufficiently
> basic terms for the non-math inclined, the powers of 7 up to 7^249 (or
> their remainder when divided by 250) will each be equal will each be
> equal to a different between 0 and 249.

Uh... It would be unwise to ask *why* this phenomenon occurs, wouldn't
it?

> Now what does all of this have to do with the MEFAs? Let's say that we
> assigned the first nomination an ID # of "7", the second an ID # of
> "14", the third an id # of "21", etc. The
> thirty-fifth entry would get an entry # of 245 (7*35=245), and the
> thirty-sixth entry would wrap around to 2. (7*36=252-250=2). Then entry
> #37 = "9", and the cycle starts all over again. When we reach 250
> nominations we would just start over with 251-500 being the 250 ID #s
> we're sifting through.
>
> The upshot is that the first seven nominations will include nominations
> from across the gamut of the first 250 stories nominated.

Ok...

<snip>

<snip difficulties>

I may have missed this, but what would this do to those of us who,
having filtered a category, have begun reading the stories in an
orderly fashion and need things not to move any more? Am I going to
have to hunt and peck for each of my twenty-five reviews if refresh a
page? Or will I copy the next day's page and discover ten things I
already reviewed waiting for me?

Dwim

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
wrote:

<snip>

>> The upshot is that the first seven nominations will include
>> nominations from across the gamut of the first 250 stories
>> nominated.
>
> Ok...
>
> <snip>
>
> <snip difficulties>
>
> I may have missed this, but what would this do to those of us who,
> having filtered a category, have begun reading the stories in an
> orderly fashion and need things not to move any more? Am I going to
> have to hunt and peck for each of my twenty-five reviews if refresh
> a page? Or will I copy the next day's page and discover ten things I
> already reviewed waiting for me?

A good question.

Rhapsody

If you sort by Title or Author (which is possible by clicking the column
descriptor at the top) as well as category, then you will get a list which
is always in the same sequence, no matter what games are played when sorting
by the entries nomination number. That should make it possible to work
through systematically just as before. (Am I right, Anthony? Marta?)

On 11/9/05, rhapsody_the_bard <rhapsody74@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> The upshot is that the first seven nominations will include
> >> nominations from across the gamut of the first 250 stories
> >> nominated.
> >
> > Ok...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > <snip difficulties>
> >
> > I may have missed this, but what would this do to those of us who,
> > having filtered a category, have begun reading the stories in an
> > orderly fashion and need things not to move any more? Am I going to
> > have to hunt and peck for each of my twenty-five reviews if refresh
> > a page? Or will I copy the next day's page and discover ten things I
> > already reviewed waiting for me?
>
> A good question.
>
> Rhapsody
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> on the web.
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:

>
> If you sort by Title or Author (which is possible by clicking the column
> descriptor at the top) as well as category, then you will get a list

which

> is always in the same sequence, no matter what games are played when

sorting

> by the entries nomination number. That should make it possible to work
> through systematically just as before. (Am I right, Anthony? Marta?)
>

So basically, I can have an alphabetical list within a category?
I confess, and no offense intended, but this concern strikes me as
somewhat obsessional, and one that, to the degree that reviewers try
to vote systematically, will have no real effect in principle.

Every ordering privileges somebody, so saying I can have an
alphabetical sorting is like conceding the point that I'm going to
privilege some group unfairly and repeatedly, especially when a lot of
people might sort lists just to make sure they don't get lost in
shifting story orders in large categories that you can't review in one
sitting or even two.

In fact, to the extent that people work by categories (and how many
people have said they began with their favorite category/-ies?), they
will end up sorting alphabetically by story or by author so as to work
in a systematic, efficient fashion. Then suddenly, the people
likeliest to get reviews are those whose stories or names have "A" as
their first letter. How is this really helping things? Unless I decide
to vote based strictly on what presents itself on the first page, I
will not be respecting a random order of voting. And I won't do that
because I need that sense of accomplishment that comes of being able
to say "I've finished this category" or "I've done one page in this
category." That helps me to feel like I'm making progress, and so
motivates me to keep going to see how many categories I can work through.

If one must avoid a system-wide standard ordering, why not just have
the first story page come up blank, except for the filters? Have the
regular filters available by drop down, but have three check boxes,
one of which must be chosen in order for stories to appear:
alphabetical sort, numerical sort, 'randomize'? If we must have a
technical solution, does this not make more sense? One is far more
likely to remember which box one checked than not, and having three
options one of which must be chosen, means things will be voluntarily
mixed up in some fashion. For a small enough category, I could go with
randomize on occasion, but not for something with more than two pages.

Dwim

I'm going to play Elf and agree yet disagree.

I don't see the sort order as a Big Deal.

I see it as a Valid Concern of a small thing that should be addressed
if it can.

I think it's human nature to read from the top of the list, or look
at the ones first that are easiest to get to - being those on the
first pages. - along the lines of ... if most people start at the
top and work their way through as many as they can get to - not
everyone will get to the end and so by default those at the beginning
would have more reads. - I can't say if they would have more reviews
or not. As RSF said, that it up to the story itself.

IMO, what I would like to see, is the MAIN page - "Browse Stories"
come up in some kind of rotating order - doesn't have to be random -
doesn't have to be every day ... just some type of shuffling.

I feel like once you're past that - the authors and stories have to
stand for themselves. Readers are going to head to their
preferences, favorite genres, authors, stories, - whatever - let the
reviews fall where they may.

while I think it's reasonable to shuffle the front page / main
unfiltered page / - I don't think it's reasonable to suffle the cate
and subcates or otherwise try to randomize the stories.


Sulriel



--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
wrote:

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
> >
> > If you sort by Title or Author (which is possible by clicking the

column

> > descriptor at the top) as well as category, then you will get a

list

> which
> > is always in the same sequence, no matter what games are played

when

> sorting
> > by the entries nomination number. That should make it possible to

work

> > through systematically just as before. (Am I right, Anthony?

Marta?)

> >
>
> So basically, I can have an alphabetical list within a category?
> I confess, and no offense intended, but this concern strikes me as
> somewhat obsessional, and one that, to the degree that reviewers try
> to vote systematically, will have no real effect in principle.
>
> Every ordering privileges somebody, so saying I can have an
> alphabetical sorting is like conceding the point that I'm going to
> privilege some group unfairly and repeatedly, especially when a lot

of

> people might sort lists just to make sure they don't get lost in
> shifting story orders in large categories that you can't review in

one

> sitting or even two.
>
> In fact, to the extent that people work by categories (and how many
> people have said they began with their favorite category/-ies?),

they

> will end up sorting alphabetically by story or by author so as to

work

> in a systematic, efficient fashion. Then suddenly, the people
> likeliest to get reviews are those whose stories or names have "A"

as

> their first letter. How is this really helping things? Unless I

decide

> to vote based strictly on what presents itself on the first page, I
> will not be respecting a random order of voting. And I won't do that
> because I need that sense of accomplishment that comes of being able
> to say "I've finished this category" or "I've done one page in this
> category." That helps me to feel like I'm making progress, and so
> motivates me to keep going to see how many categories I can work

through.

>
> If one must avoid a system-wide standard ordering, why not just have
> the first story page come up blank, except for the filters? Have the
> regular filters available by drop down, but have three check boxes,
> one of which must be chosen in order for stories to appear:
> alphabetical sort, numerical sort, 'randomize'? If we must have a
> technical solution, does this not make more sense? One is far more
> likely to remember which box one checked than not, and having three
> options one of which must be chosen, means things will be

voluntarily

> mixed up in some fashion. For a small enough category, I could go

with

> randomize on occasion, but not for something with more than two

pages.

>
> Dwim
>

Yup, individuals who prefer a certain sequence could opt for that sequence
and use it repeatedly, which might give some stories a higher hit rate with
some reviewers, but since it would be individualized, wouldn't be the same
problem as what appears on the initial load of the Browse Stories page.
Difference being that the initial load is like a repetitive commercial if it
doesn't vary. There's a good chance reviewers would chose different sorting
schemes.
(Incidentally, I love sorting and filtering systems which let me prioritize
which sort/filter comes first, which second, which third, etc., but I don't
know if that's feasible in this database.)
I've got mixed feelings about the idea of showing no stories on the Browse
Stories interface. You're right in that it would mean no advantage, but at
the same time it means that the new user or guest wouldn't be seeing
anything for at least one more screen, and there's a persistence limit to
clicking through on websites. (I forget the exact data, and the article was
a few years ago, but from what I see in the library it's still true that
people give up on a website if they don't find something which seems to be
close to what they're after fairly quickly.)

On 11/9/05, dwimmer_laik <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
> >
> > If you sort by Title or Author (which is possible by clicking the column
> > descriptor at the top) as well as category, then you will get a list
> which
> > is always in the same sequence, no matter what games are played when
> sorting
> > by the entries nomination number. That should make it possible to work
> > through systematically just as before. (Am I right, Anthony? Marta?)
> >
>
> So basically, I can have an alphabetical list within a category?
> I confess, and no offense intended, but this concern strikes me as
> somewhat obsessional, and one that, to the degree that reviewers try
> to vote systematically, will have no real effect in principle.
>
> Every ordering privileges somebody, so saying I can have an
> alphabetical sorting is like conceding the point that I'm going to
> privilege some group unfairly and repeatedly, especially when a lot of
> people might sort lists just to make sure they don't get lost in
> shifting story orders in large categories that you can't review in one
> sitting or even two.
>
> In fact, to the extent that people work by categories (and how many
> people have said they began with their favorite category/-ies?), they
> will end up sorting alphabetically by story or by author so as to work
> in a systematic, efficient fashion. Then suddenly, the people
> likeliest to get reviews are those whose stories or names have "A" as
> their first letter. How is this really helping things? Unless I decide
> to vote based strictly on what presents itself on the first page, I
> will not be respecting a random order of voting. And I won't do that
> because I need that sense of accomplishment that comes of being able
> to say "I've finished this category" or "I've done one page in this
> category." That helps me to feel like I'm making progress, and so
> motivates me to keep going to see how many categories I can work through.
>
> If one must avoid a system-wide standard ordering, why not just have
> the first story page come up blank, except for the filters? Have the
> regular filters available by drop down, but have three check boxes,
> one of which must be chosen in order for stories to appear:
> alphabetical sort, numerical sort, 'randomize'? If we must have a
> technical solution, does this not make more sense? One is far more
> likely to remember which box one checked than not, and having three
> options one of which must be chosen, means things will be voluntarily
> mixed up in some fashion. For a small enough category, I could go with
> randomize on occasion, but not for something with more than two pages.
>
> Dwim
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> on the web.
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
rote:

> If one must avoid a system-wide standard ordering, why not just have
> the first story page come up blank, except for the filters? Have the
> regular filters available by drop down, but have three check boxes,
> one of which must be chosen in order for stories to appear:
> alphabetical sort, numerical sort, 'randomize'? If we must have a
> technical solution, does this not make more sense? One is far more
> likely to remember which box one checked than not, and having three
> options one of which must be chosen, means things will be voluntarily
> mixed up in some fashion. For a small enough category, I could go

with > randomize on occasion, but not for something with more than two
pages.

>
> Dwim
>

I would support a storyless 'browse stories' page with filters and
checkboxes if it would be easier (or even simply smarter and/or
simplier) than any kind of programed shuffling and sorting.

Sulriel

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:

>
> Yup, individuals who prefer a certain sequence could opt for that

sequence

> and use it repeatedly, which might give some stories a higher hit

rate with

> some reviewers, but since it would be individualized, wouldn't be

the same

> problem as what appears on the initial load of the Browse Stories page.
> Difference being that the initial load is like a repetitive

commercial if it

> doesn't vary. There's a good chance reviewers would chose different

sorting

> schemes.

I think much of our disagreement arises because we're each assuming
our own method of selecting stories to review is the one most people
will choose. I didn't realize that you just started on page one and
started working forward til I saw an earlier post. On the other hand,
I saw people claiming they reviewed by category first, so I assumed
many would be selecting stories to review in a manner that was similar
to mine. Look at, for example, Thundera's reviews in the order in
which they came in: clearly, she's reviewing by category. Marta, too,
seemed often times to be working in categories. There were other
groupings that suggested people were reviewing mostly in Hobbits,
mostly in Elves, or some other category at a given point in time.

So my thought is: if most people gravitate towards reviewing by
category, trying to gear solutions to inadvertant privileging via
ordering of stories towards that kind of methodology might be more
urgent.

But it need not be exclusive. I think much could be done to address
both our concerns simply by changing how the webpages are organized.
Your point about click-through issues is well taken. However, what if,
upon logging in *during reading/voting season*, you were *immediately*
sent to the first story page, with only filters on it? Your first
click-through would be to sort stories. Maybe there could even be an
option such that choosing a check-box, but not choosing a category,
would sort the entire database accordingly, allowing someone to review
in a manner analogous to the manner you used this year. (For
nominating season, I'm actually much in favor of an alphabetical
ordering by author or story, so it's easier to discover whether some
piece of work has been nominated already--so maybe during nomination
season, the filter could be permanently set on "alphabetical sort.)

This would require, however, a much more user-friendly set of
navigation aids: a main menu that would remain the same through every
screen, allowing you to get to page one of any "section" of the
website from any page within the site in one click, would be
enormously helpful. An FAQ plainly visible (and perhaps customized for
each section?) and that came up in a pop-up window, so you didn't have
to click "Back" or reload the page you'd come from, and so that you
could compare what the FAQ says to what's actually on your screen,
would be wonderful.

If simple instructions were included (no more than a line or two per
thing discussed, and hopefully no more than three major points to
discuss per page) were included as part of page one of every section,
I think that might make the site easier to use over all and also more
amenable to technical solutions to the issue of inadvertant
privileging of stories via their ordering.

What say you, Anthony? Ideas from the web-design geeks on site?

Dwim

I think we're sort of at cross purposes... I didn't start on page one and
work forward either. I putzed around categories, keyword searched for Sam,
(and I'd like an "exact word" check for that, if it's all the "sam"e to
y'all.) looked for authors I liked, filtered for a low number of reviews,
filtered for drabbles, or short stories, checked out other things that the
people who had nominated the stories I liked had nominated, made a filter
and then clicked on page "three" or "four" instead of reading down page one,
looked at reviews and followed a few, and generally changed my strategy
every time I signed on. But every time I went to the "Browse Stories" page
after signing on, the first story on the list before I applied any filters
was Thundera Tiger's "While the Ring Went South." Now it's a great story,
and I've loved it dearly almost from the time I came into the fandom, but in
the usual size window on my computer at home and my computer at work it was
the only story which consistently showed. And when the results came out, lo
and behold, one story had garnered 17 reviews, and it was "While the Ring
Went South".
It's even more noticeable if you take the time to look at the kinds of
stories which had the next highest numbers.
At fourteen we had a drabble and a vignette.
At thirteen we had three vignettes and a drabble.
At twelve we had 3 vignettes, 3 drabbles and 1 short story. (And that short
story was the sixth item on the list.)
No other novels even came close to the number of reviews.
I have no clue what determined the order I saw the "Browse Stories" in, but
I saw the same order as a guest and as me, so I assumed it was consistent to
everyone. And I don't want to take away anything from Thundera Tiger,
because I think that her story probably would have won in its subcategory
even if it weren't at the top of the list. But because a familiar story
popped up in front of me every time I signed on, it had a better chance of
getting a review in spite of its length. (And oh, did I enjoy rereading it!)
So when I talk about making things pop up randomly, I'm only talking about
doing that when people first click into the "Browse stories", before they've
applied any filters or made a choice of sort order. This is the only kind of
"unfairness" which I see as intrinsic to the structure of the way the awards
were conducted this year. The other things we've talked about -- the
tendency of people to go to what they know and follow friendly faces along
the path -- are part of human nature, and I don't think we can design them
away without making the story details so uninformative as to be
uninteresting as well.

On 11/9/05, dwimmer_laik <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
> >
> > Yup, individuals who prefer a certain sequence could opt for that
> sequence
> > and use it repeatedly, which might give some stories a higher hit
> rate with
> > some reviewers, but since it would be individualized, wouldn't be
> the same
> > problem as what appears on the initial load of the Browse Stories page.
> > Difference being that the initial load is like a repetitive
> commercial if it
> > doesn't vary. There's a good chance reviewers would chose different
> sorting
> > schemes.
>
> I think much of our disagreement arises because we're each assuming
> our own method of selecting stories to review is the one most people
> will choose. I didn't realize that you just started on page one and
> started working forward til I saw an earlier post. On the other hand,
> I saw people claiming they reviewed by category first, so I assumed
> many would be selecting stories to review in a manner that was similar
> to mine.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I've got mixed feelings about the idea of showing no stories on
> the Browse
> Stories interface. You're right in that it would mean no advantage, but at
> the same time it means that the new user or guest wouldn't be seeing
> anything for at least one more screen, and there's a persistence limit to
> clicking through on websites. (I forget the exact data, and the
> article was
> a few years ago, but from what I see in the library it's still true that
> people give up on a website if they don't find something which seems to be
> close to what they're after fairly quickly.)

I know from experience and user analysis for software that important things
should not be more than 3 clicks away. If you have to click more to get to
the basics users leave.

Chris

Hi Rabidsamfan,

On 9 Nov 2005, at 04:37, C Dodd wrote:

> If you sort by Title or Author (which is possible by clicking the
> column
> descriptor at the top) as well as category, then you will get a list
> which
> is always in the same sequence, no matter what games are played when
> sorting
> by the entries nomination number. That should make it possible to work
> through systematically just as before. (Am I right, Anthony? Marta?)
>

If I understand what you're saying, I think it should work. Of course
I'm going from memory here, and that's proved to be remarkably
unreliable lately, so maybe someone else should confirm this.

Cheers,
Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

On 9 Nov 2005, at 09:56, C Dodd wrote:

> Yup, individuals who prefer a certain sequence could opt for that
> sequence
> and use it repeatedly, which might give some stories a higher hit
> rate with
> some reviewers, but since it would be individualized, wouldn't be the
> same
> problem as what appears on the initial load of the Browse Stories
> page.
> Difference being that the initial load is like a repetitive
> commercial if it
> doesn't vary. There's a good chance reviewers would chose different
> sorting
> schemes.
> (Incidentally, I love sorting and filtering systems which let me
> prioritize
> which sort/filter comes first, which second, which third, etc., but I
> don't
> know if that's feasible in this database.)
> I've got mixed feelings about the idea of showing no stories on the
> Browse
> Stories interface. You're right in that it would mean no advantage,
> but at
> the same time it means that the new user or guest wouldn't be seeing
> anything for at least one more screen, and there's a persistence
> limit to
> clicking through on websites. (I forget the exact data, and the
> article was
> a few years ago, but from what I see in the library it's still true
> that
> people give up on a website if they don't find something which seems
> to be
> close to what they're after fairly quickly.)
>

Rabidsamfan,

This gave me what might be a better and simpler idea.

Anthony, would it be easier to do something like

if(reviewer's name begins with A-D)
sort by id #
else if (reviewer's name begins with E-H)
sort by id # backward (beginning with largest number)
else if(reviewer's name begins with I-L)
sort by title
else if(reviewer's name begins with M-P)
sort backward by title (beginning with titles beginning with 'z')
else if(reviewer's name begins with Q-T)
sort by category (or first category choice during nomination season)
else(reviewer's name begins with U-Z)
sort backward by category (or first category choice during nomination
season)

The idea is that different reviewers are given a different sort by
default. This means that if a story is given some minimal advantage by
being displayed at the top of the list in one screen, at least it will
only be displayed to 1/6 of the reviewers.

Or Dwim's proposed fix of a blank screen to start off with works just
fine to me.

Cheers,
Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

> <snip long mathematical discussion>
>

Sorry about that! I tried to keep it short, but the inner geek
apparently won out.

> Marta,
>
> What you describe would take some work, because the
> IDs are created by the database automatically.
>
> But...
>
> I might be able to figure out something. It could be
> as simple as assigning IDs as random numbers between 1
> and 100,000 (while checking to be sure there's no
> duplication).
>

That's similar to what I was trying to do. The numbers would not be
random but they wouldn't be strictly sequential either. The point in my
mind was to make it so that the first stories nominated weren't
necessarily the first ones the reviewer sees because this seems to give
them an advantage. Or at least it could.

That was the basic idea of my number thing. I wanted to give every
story an equal chance of being on the first page and at the top of
every page. I want the pages themselves to stay set (at least after the
ballots are finalised, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to have
that order be something more random than simply the order in which they
were nominated.

What you're describing sounds like it would work. If we can't think of
anything simple, I don't think it's a huge deal, though. Certainly if
this is going to be work-intensive for you, save your time for other
things - preferably not related to these awards. :-) This definitely
falls into the "would be nice but not a huge deal" category for me.

Cheers,
Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)